Open Peer Review: New Rule

New rule! From this moment forward, in anything claiming to be a “discussion” of open peer review, no one is allowed to refer to the Nature experiment as evidence that open review can’t work, at least not unless you simultaneously demonstrate (a) that you’re aware of at least one experiment in which it worked quite well (hey, wait; the results were even reproducible!) and (b) that you’ve read at least one text that asks a question or two about the Nature experiment’s presuppositions, and thus its scientific merit. We can call this the Fitzpatrick variant of Godwin’s Law; once Nature gets trotted out, it’s evident that you’re not interested in a real discussion.

That is all.

10 November 2011 by KF | Categories: grousing, publishing

Comments (4)

  1. Thank you!

  2. I should have said less ambiguously thank you for visiting anthropology-land and offering valuable resources and counter-examples for us to consider.

  3. Ach, my irritation at the perennial Nature maneuver got the better of me. I hope the counter examples might actually be useful; I think there’s far more potential benefit to be explored than is apparently being granted.

  4. Now I wish I was a fly on the wall in the room where the conversation that spurred this on happened.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported This work by Kathleen Fitzpatrick is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
%d bloggers like this: